Too bad it’s called the law of unintended consequences, and not (as I thought just now) the law of unexpected consequences. Otherwise I could move this whole idea out of the category of consequences just by expecting it! I would be good at that! But I can’t.
The FDA has recommended installing RFID tags on retail packages of drugs. This in itself is not a bad thing; it is intended to help prevent drug counterfeiting, and might even work, to some degree. What’s bad is that, quote,
“…a workgroup has been set up with a view to extending the technology to help manufacturers to conduct recalls or the FDA to investigate stolen stock.”
In other words, it is likely that in the near future, individual bottles of drugs will surreptitiously begin carrying RFID tags. This will have bad and (probably) unintended consequences.
You probably already know what RFID tags are: the strange little circuit-looking stickers you find sometimes in the middle of books you buy, or on the boxes for electronic equipment. They’re like bar codes, but they can carry more information, can be both read and (potentially) written to, and–most importantly–don’t require a line of sight. They respond to broadcasts on certain radio frequencies: thus RFID, Radio Frequency IDentification.
These attributes have made them very useful in tracking retail inventory, and they are commonly used on pallets in warehouses right now. They’re also the reason your librarian or Best Buy cashier rubs the things you get against that little pad, to make sure you don’t set off the beepers when you leave. That pad is writing a new bit to the RFID tag, saying “it’s okay for me to leave.”
Fine, good, it’s nice that companies can more easily figure out what is on a pallet and make sure you don’t steal their books. Once you get it out of the store, you can remove the tag, or you can leave it alone if you’re not worried about people knowing you read Star Trek novelizations.
But when we start tracking individual bottles of prescription drugs with RFID tags, things become different. You have a right to privacy with respect to the drugs you take. They’re a private matter that can seriously affect the way people see you. Nobody else should know what you’re taking except you, your doctor, your pharmacist and the people you trust.
Of course, as the article I linked points out, RFID readers are not something people carry around. They’re large and conspicuous, and they cost thousands of dollars! It’s not like somebody’s going to walk around on the street scanning the drugs in people’s backpacks and purses.
Not yet, no. But there are already lots of RFID readers in use. There’s one at your Kroger. There’s one at your Barnes & Noble, your Blockbuster and your Staples. There’s one at your library. They’re set up to read their own proprietary information, but they’re perfectly capable of reading any RFID tag that passes through them.
Do you want your potential employers at JCPenney to notice that you have a heart condition, and quietly choose somebody “less risky” for the job? Do you want the staff at Waldenbooks to remember you as “Mister Male Problems?” Do you want anyone to know you’re on Valtrex? What about Fuzeon?
You can leave the drugs at home, of course, but people with epilepsy or severe allergies (to name just two) don’t have that option. You can put them in a different container, which is against the law. You can remove or destroy the RFID tag, and walk into an airport, and have your bags examined, and what’s this? This bottle doesn’t have a tag! Why, it must be counterfeit!
The third option is to trust people with access to information about your purchase habits, your credit card numbers and your prescription drug information not to start putting it together. I don’t even take any drugs, and I’m not interested in that.
I wonder what the EFF will have to say about this.